Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 12:20:20 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 230752] panic: excl->share in newnfs_request Message-ID: <bug-230752-3630-Gbca3XgBID@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-230752-3630@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-230752-3630@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D230752 --- Comment #6 from commit-hook@freebsd.org --- A commit references this bug: Author: rmacklem Date: Wed Aug 22 12:20:10 UTC 2018 New revision: 338192 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/338192 Log: Revert r320757 since it can cause "excl->shared" panics. PR#230752 shows a panic where an nfsd thread tries to do soconnect() on the AF_LOCAL socket used by the nfsuserd while already holding an exclusive lock on it. I am not 100% sure how this happens, but since an AF_LOCAL socket is in the file system namespace it is conceivable that it could lock it and then attempt an upcall to the nfsuserd. However, reverting r320757 stops the nfsuserd from using an AF_LOCAL socket, so it should avoid any such panic(). r320757 did fix a problem with running the nfsuserd when jails were enabled, but that can be dealt with less elegantly by allowing the use of an alternate address instead of 127.0.0.1. The gssd daemon also uses an AF_LOCAL socket, but it will do upcalls before the nfsd thread processes the RPC, so I think it should not be suseptible to this problem. PR: 230752 Changes: head/usr.sbin/nfsuserd/nfsuserd.c --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-230752-3630-Gbca3XgBID>